atzanteol @ atzanteol @sh.itjust.works

Posts

6

Comments

4,041

Joined

2 yr. ago

His sex trafficking is not the conspiracy. The conspiracy is that there has been a massive cover-up.

For sex trafficking?

It's funny because this is a conspiracy theory that both liberals and MAGA absolutely believe in despite the total lack of any evidence (besides, "you know" or "c'mon, of course there is").

People have a psychological bias to humanize anything that communicates with them and companies are trying to latch onto that mechanism because they benefit when people get an emotional attachment to websites. So I think Google and many others are trying to make people think of websites as things with agencies, rather than machines controlled by people. And yea I think they are partly successful.

This is just stupid. I'm not going to sugar coat it. Nobody thinks their computer is a sentient creature save for some tiny percentage of people who may be mentally ill or otherwise disabled.

People can’t even tell the difference between their operating system and their apps.

There is an ENORMOUS difference between not understanding different layers of the technology stack and thinking your computer is a thinking creature.

Like I said originally - do you think people believe their television wants to sell them "Tide"? Or do they realize that it's the advertising company. As you say - people love to "humanize anything that communicates with them" and they "do not understand technology".

I get the "nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the general public" vibe - but do you really think that people believe that websites act with agency to sell them things?

This! KDE's settings are a mess to navigate. I completely understand why that person didn't know there even was a configuration for this.

I understand that it's not the "YouTube program" having its own agency and making this decision - it's the team behind it, driven by engagement metrics and growth targets. But does the average user understand this distinction?

Yes.

What a stupid question. Does the author think that people believe televisions want to sell them things too?

The Wayland security model is far more restrictive. Accessibility tools need to screen capture, create input events on your behalf, etc. Such things aren't possible under Wayland (yet?).

I mean... No - to keep it. "No man rules alone." They need key supporters. However simply "being rich" is not enough.

Usually they are. Dictators typically gain and keep power by appeasing the wealthy and powerful.

Farmer's almanac.

It's not my fault they make running apps from the cli so irritating. Broken by design. Even snaps work better.

therefore had no journalistic obligations (I.e. they could say whatever they wanted).

There is literally no such thing in the eyes of the law. They could say whatever they want whenever they want.

journalism has legal protections and responsibilities that are upheld/enforced in courts.

No. It does not. The first amendment does not say "if you are a legally recognized journalist". It applies to everybody.

Fox "News" is not a news channel. They actually define themselves as "entertainment" so you can't call them out for their lies in court.

This is the weirdest thing liberals believe. There is no such thing as "defining yourself as news or entertainment." There is no legal definition of "news organization".

The lawsuit you're going to reference said that Carlson was "opining" rather than stating "facts" which has a legal definition. Legal definitions don't often match with common usage.

And you can "call anyone out" for lying whether they're a news organization or not.

"My situation is nuanced and complicated. Other people's situations are simple and straightforward."

They believed the caricature "bad people" were going to be the ones targeted. She wasn't a "bad person" she just stayed a little longer while trying to get her green card....

We feel totally blindsided

😑

Are we going to see how advanced shopping centers are in Iran? 🤣

the Guadalupe River had risen about 26 feet in 45 minutes.

Goddamn...

Many (most?) databases these days support some sort of full text search.

If a function has 300 lines without a lot of supporting documentation then I doubt that it is “clear, readable and concise” anyway.

Code - not function. Files often have multiple functions in them. If you can't read and understand code - I don't want you on my team.

I have never found it hard at all to skip past comments that are not relevant because my code editor helpfully colors them differently from the rest of the code, making it easy. Does your editor not do the same?

If it's something people will simply skip over then it's not useful. Don't pollute code with tons of unnecessary comments that you think will be useful for some "perceived future". They just add to your maintenance work.

Write your code to be understandable and document the architecture/design separately.

It depends on what you are doing. If you are implementing relatively simple logic like a REST API handler, then it is probably overkill. If you are implementing a relatively advanced algorithm, then having a running narrative of what is going can be extremely helpful.

Agree - most code is pretty straight forward. Save the comments for where it's needed.